Planning
Auckland Unitary Plan checks
This stage creates a site-specific planning checklist covering the operative plan text and maps, zone, precinct, overlays, designations, activity status, development controls, subdivision provisions, and assessment criteria. This page shows what a beginner residential developer in Auckland should check, who to ask, what evidence to save, and where to verify before committing money or instructions.
How to execute this stage
Micro-stage control plan
Work through each applicable step in order. A hold point means pause the dependent decision or work until the stated evidence and authorised review are complete.
01Zone and precinctLevel 2 · Planning
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Zone and precinct
Technical context
Test this point against Current Auckland Unitary Plan maps, the current feasibility version and written input from Planner. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether the proposal is viable under the exact site controls.
Prerequisites
- Current Auckland Unitary Plan maps is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Planner has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Current Auckland Unitary Plan maps directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Current Auckland Unitary Plan maps
- Written Planner response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Current Auckland Unitary Plan maps
- Planning review checklist
- Planner briefing template
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether the proposal is viable under the exact site controls.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
All active overlays and designations
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
02All active overlays and designationsLevel 2 · Planning
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
All active overlays and designations
Technical context
Test this point against Relevant operative plan chapters, the current feasibility version and written input from Architect or architectural designer. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on likely consent pathway.
Prerequisites
- Relevant operative plan chapters is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Architect or architectural designer has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Relevant operative plan chapters directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Relevant operative plan chapters
- Written Architect or architectural designer response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Relevant operative plan chapters
- Planning review checklist
- Planner briefing template
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before likely consent pathway.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Applicable activity tables
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
03Applicable activity tablesLevel 2 · Planning
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Applicable activity tables
Technical context
Test this point against Planning memo with rule references, the current feasibility version and written input from Licensed cadastral surveyor. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on design changes needed.
Prerequisites
- Planning memo with rule references is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Licensed cadastral surveyor has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Planning memo with rule references directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Planning memo with rule references
- Written Licensed cadastral surveyor response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Planning memo with rule references
- Planning review checklist
- Planner briefing template
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before design changes needed.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Development controls
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
04Development controlsLevel 2 · Planning
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Development controls
Technical context
Test this point against Concept or yield plan, the current feasibility version and written input from Developer. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether pre-application or specialist advice is justified.
Prerequisites
- Concept or yield plan is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Developer has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Concept or yield plan directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Concept or yield plan
- Written Developer response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Concept or yield plan
- Planning review checklist
- Planner briefing template
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether pre-application or specialist advice is justified.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Subdivision provisions
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
05Subdivision provisionsLevel 2 · Planning
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Subdivision provisions
Technical context
Test this point against Record of Title, the current feasibility version and written input from Planner. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether the proposal is viable under the exact site controls.
Prerequisites
- Record of Title is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Planner has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Record of Title directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Record of Title
- Written Planner response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Record of Title
- Planning review checklist
- Planner briefing template
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether the proposal is viable under the exact site controls.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Site-specific standards
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
06Site-specific standardsLevel 2 · Planning
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Site-specific standards
Technical context
Test this point against Survey information, the current feasibility version and written input from Architect or architectural designer. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on likely consent pathway.
Prerequisites
- Survey information is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Architect or architectural designer has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Survey information directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Survey information
- Written Architect or architectural designer response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Survey information
- Planning review checklist
- Planner briefing template
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before likely consent pathway.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Assessment criteria
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
07Assessment criteriaLevel 2 · Planning
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Assessment criteria
Technical context
Test this point against Current Auckland Unitary Plan maps, the current feasibility version and written input from Licensed cadastral surveyor. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on design changes needed.
Prerequisites
- Current Auckland Unitary Plan maps is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Licensed cadastral surveyor has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Current Auckland Unitary Plan maps directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Current Auckland Unitary Plan maps
- Written Licensed cadastral surveyor response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Current Auckland Unitary Plan maps
- Planning review checklist
- Planner briefing template
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before design changes needed.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Potential notification and specialist-report risks
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
08Potential notification and specialist-report risksLevel 2 · Planning
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Potential notification and specialist-report risks
Technical context
Test this point against Relevant operative plan chapters, the current feasibility version and written input from Developer. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.
Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether pre-application or specialist advice is justified.
Prerequisites
- Relevant operative plan chapters is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Developer has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Relevant operative plan chapters directly support the conclusion?
- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
- Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?
Evidence to save
- Relevant operative plan chapters
- Written Developer response or a recorded reason it is not required
- Dated feasibility/risk/decision update
Hold point
Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.
Stop or escalate when
- The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
- The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
- A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.
Documents and records
- Relevant operative plan chapters
- Planning review checklist
- Planner briefing template
- Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
- Cost effect
- Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether pre-application or specialist advice is justified.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
Make and record the stage decision: Whether pre-application or specialist advice is justified. Then open the next applicable development stage.
Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.
Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.
Developer go / no-go control
Decision gates before the next commitment
A gate records whether evidence supports a commercial decision. It does not replace advice or predict an authority, lender, purchaser or market outcome.
Before the next material commitment
Decision: Proceed, pause, obtain evidence, or escalate
Minimum evidence
- • Current source documents and professional responses
- • Versioned feasibility, risk and programme update
- • Named owner and deadline for every unresolved dependency
Update before deciding
- • Cost and contingency
- • Time and holding/finance effect
- • Yield, value, consent and exit effect
Stop / escalate when
- • A material conclusion is still an assumption
- • Sources conflict or are out of date
- • The authorised decision-maker cannot see the downside consequence
What this stage means
- Auckland Unitary Plan checks is the part of the project where the developer turns an idea into a checked decision, not a guess.
- The stage should connect market demand, planning rules, legal constraints, design, cost, funding, time, risk, and exit strategy.
- For Auckland residential development, the answer is site-specific. The same idea can be low risk on one site and unworkable on the next because of zoning, overlays, title interests, services, slope, flooding, neighbours, or finance.
Why this stage matters
- Early mistakes become expensive because land, design, consultants, holding costs, consent fees, and finance costs continue even when the project is paused.
- The developer needs written evidence for lenders, consultants, lawyers, valuers, builders, purchasers, and future dispute protection.
- This stage usually needs verification from Auckland Unitary Plan, Auckland Unitary Plan maps, Auckland Council resource consent, Relevant professional advice before the developer treats the conclusion as reliable.
Step-by-step guide
- 1Define the decision needed at the end of this stage and the date it is needed by.
- 2Gather the stage documents: Current Auckland Unitary Plan maps, Relevant operative plan chapters, Planning memo with rule references, Concept or yield plan, and the remaining stage records.
- 3Read the documents once for understanding, then again to list unknowns, risks, contradictions, missing evidence, and professional questions.
- 4Ask the responsible professionals to confirm the critical points: Planner, Architect or architectural designer, Licensed cadastral surveyor, Developer.
- 5Update the feasibility, programme, risk register, and decision register with source references and dates.
- 6Decide whether to proceed, pause, redesign, renegotiate, add conditions, seek more advice, or abandon the option.
- 7Save the evidence in a dated folder and write a short stage closeout note explaining what was decided and why.
What the developer must do
- Write down the development objective for auckland unitary plan checks in one clear paragraph: build-to-sell, build-to-rent, retain one dwelling, subdivide, renovate, or staged development.
- Open the current feasibility, programme, decision register, risk register, and due diligence folder before making new commitments.
- Collect the documents needed for this stage: Current Auckland Unitary Plan maps, Relevant operative plan chapters, Planning memo with rule references, Concept or yield plan, Record of Title, Survey information.
- Send focused questions to the right people: Planner, Architect or architectural designer, Licensed cadastral surveyor, Developer.
- Record assumptions separately from verified facts so the feasibility does not look more certain than it really is.
- Update cost, time, consent, finance, and sales assumptions immediately after receiving new information.
- Escalate anything that changes yield, sale price, cost, timing, consent pathway, title, funding, or settlement risk.
Verification
Source / where to check
Use current official information and the controlled documents for the actual project.
Check the operative plan, maps, zones, precincts, overlays, activity status, development controls, subdivision rules, and assessment criteria for the specific site.
Use the plan maps to confirm site-specific zoning, overlays, precincts, controls, designations, natural hazards, and planning layers before relying on generic guidance.
Check council guidance, application requirements, RFI process, consent conditions, approved plans, engineering approvals, and monitoring requirements for site-specific development approvals.
Planner, surveyor, architect, engineer, quantity surveyor, lawyer, accountant, lender, valuer, real estate agent, and other project specialists must confirm site-specific decisions.
Project-specific consented documents and professional advice override generic guidance.
Common mistakes
- Treating an agent comment, generic online rule, or old document as verified site-specific advice.
- Forgetting to update the feasibility after design, consent, finance, or market information changes.
- Not allowing enough contingency, professional fees, council fees, finance costs, holding costs, and time risk.
- Failing to keep written records of who confirmed what and when.
- Using auckland unitary plan checks to push ahead even when the red flags show the project should pause.
Common risks
- Yield reduces after proper planning, engineering, title, or infrastructure review.
- Costs increase after QS, builder, civil, geotechnical, demolition, asbestos, or consent information is received.
- Programme moves out because consultant inputs, council RFIs, neighbour issues, finance, title, or construction sequencing take longer than assumed.
- Funding or sales assumptions change before the project reaches settlement.
- The developer relies on unverified information and loses negotiating power or misses a due diligence deadline.
Common costs
- Professional fees for planner, architect/designer, surveyor, engineer, QS, lawyer, accountant, valuer, and lender reports.
- Council fees, consent fees, development contribution estimates, engineering approvals, infrastructure checks, and inspection/monitoring costs where relevant.
- Design revisions, reports, investigations, demolition/asbestos work, service location, geotechnical testing, and valuation updates.
- Holding costs such as interest, rates, insurance, utilities, temporary maintenance, and security.
- Contingency for unverified conditions until the relevant professional confirms them.
Quotes and fee proposals to obtain
- Obtain written fee proposals or quotations from the relevant stage professionals: Planner, Architect or architectural designer, Licensed cadastral surveyor, Developer.
- Issue the same current documents and a clear scope to each party so prices, exclusions, assumptions, deliverables, lead times, and programme can be compared.
- Identify council, authority, investigation, testing, design, construction, monitoring, and close-out charges that may sit outside a consultant or contractor quote.
- Record every provisional sum, estimate, exclusion, expiry date, dependency, and unverified allowance in the Quote Register and feasibility.
- Do not approve an appointment or purchase order until scope ownership, evidence required, payment terms, variation process, insurance or competency checks, and completion deliverables are understood.
Common delays
- Waiting for property file, LIM, title instruments, survey information, consultant reports, or council responses.
- Design changes caused by planning controls, infrastructure constraints, engineering findings, budget pressure, or market feedback.
- Lender, valuer, lawyer, or purchaser conditions not being satisfied on time.
- Council RFI responses needing more consultant work than expected.
- Construction or subdivision closeout documents not matching settlement or sales deadlines.
Common consultant questions
- For Auckland Unitary Plan checks, what are the three highest risks that could change cost, time, yield, or approval pathway?
- Which parts of your advice are confirmed, which are assumptions, and which require another professional to confirm?
- What documents did you rely on, and are any documents missing, outdated, superseded, or inconsistent?
- What decision does the developer need to make now, and what should wait until more information is available?
- What wording should go into the decision register, consultant meeting minutes, or lender/client update?
Red flags
- A professional says the issue is outside their scope and no one else has been asked to confirm it.
- The feasibility only works if optimistic sale prices, low construction costs, fast consent, low interest, and no delays all happen together.
- A title, planning, flooding, geotechnical, access, service, or covenant issue may prevent the intended yield.
- A seller, agent, builder, or consultant pressures the developer to waive due diligence before core checks are complete.
- The project file has no written evidence for a major decision.
When to stop and get professional advice
- Stop and get professional advice when title, easements, covenants, unit title, cross lease, or subdivision matters affect the proposal.
- Stop and get professional advice when zoning, overlays, activity status, notification, infrastructure capacity, flooding, geotechnical, contamination, or heritage could affect yield.
- Stop and get professional advice when GST, income tax, entity structure, lending, guarantees, or sale contract terms affect the decision.
- Stop and get professional advice when the developer is about to sign, waive a condition, lodge consent, start work, approve a variation, accept practical completion, or settle.
Decisions that must be made
- Whether the proposal is viable under the exact site controls
- Likely consent pathway
- Design changes needed
- Whether pre-application or specialist advice is justified
Evidence to save
- Dated source documents and consultant advice.
- Feasibility version showing the assumptions used at the time of decision.
- Risk register and decision register entries.
- Meeting notes, emails, marked-up plans, calculations, photos, and council/lender/consultant responses.
- Clear note of who approved the next step and any conditions attached to that approval.
Beginner-friendly example
The developer saves the map layers and asks the planner to cite the exact operative provisions rather than relying on a general description of the zone.
Use this in my project
Turn auckland unitary plan checks into controlled action
Open the relevant workspace register, create the project-specific record, link the controlling documents and preserve evidence. The guide does not automatically approve or verify the action.